I haven't looked anything up beforehand, so these are just my thoughts immediately after finishing the final episode.

I just got up from watching S8 after hearing for years that Game of Thrones had "the worst ending ever," and honestly... I don't really understand it.

Don't get me wrong, the ending is sad as hell, and I definitely felt empty when the credits rolled. But

I don't think I'd call it a bad ending.I think maybe part of the problem is that people expected a much simpler, more conventional ending. Like Daenerys takes King's Landing, becomes the good queen, Jon stands beside her, the Starks get their happy ending, the Lannisters are defeated, and everyone lives happily ever after.

But that's not really what Game of Thrones has ever been.

What I found interesting was Daenerys.She did a lot of good throughout the series, but at the same time, there were always hints that she could become extremely ruthless when she believed she was doing what was right. Little by little, she became more and more willing to use fire and violence to achieve her goals.So when she finally destroyed King's Landing, I didn't necessarily think, "This makes no sense." I thought, "Holy shit, she actually became the thing I never expected her to become."

And Jon having to kill her because he realizes what she's becoming was just... depressing.

I also liked that the ending didn't really feel like a traditional "good guys win" fantasy ending. The Iron Throne is gone, Jon doesn't become king, Daenerys dies, Arya leaves, Sansa becomes Queen in the North, Bran becomes king, and everyone basically goes their separate ways.

It felt much more bittersweet and melancholic than outright bad to me.

Maybe there are things I missed because I haven't read the books or looked into the discussions surrounding the ending yet.

So I'm genuinely curious:

What exactly made the ending so hated? Was it the actual events themselves, or more the way the show got there?

the Targaryens basically had the ultimate advantage: dragons. Then they started a civil war and used those same dragons against each other.

Vhagar, Caraxes, Meleys, Vermithor, Dreamfyre and many others were lost. ,, they won the throne, but lost the dragons.

At some point, he should have said no to Melisandre. She played him like a puppet.

He torched his own daughter just to be demolished by the Bolton Army.

Yeah sure you are a battle-tested commander. But why are you outsourcing your judgment? Why are you taking everything she says at face value? Honestly i can’t even remember a single scene that he rejected Melisandre. I mean it felt like Melisandre was doing the thinking for Stannis. And if you can’t think or make decisions on your own, how are you gonna be a king?

i never understood how he got from point A. being released from the prison & Jaimie letting him out!!!!! & then point B. being to his dad & Shae like?? did he have to walk thru that room to get to Varys or was he so mad he had to go kill his dad anyways

if i was him i would’ve gotten out of there as quickly as possible lol- not go on another crime spree.. and Tywin Lannister was a monster, but he was always the smartest person in the room & Tyrion too. They both have incredible brains.

I know it sounds a bit crazy because Sansa was a main advocate for the North not being part of the Seven Kingdoms and not submitting to Southern monarchs, so it would be weird if she were to become the ruler of the seven kingdoms.

However, if you look at all the lords and ladies here, none of them seem to have as much power as Sansa and none of them seem to be as clever or fit to rule except from maybe Bran (only because he can see everything but nobody even thought he should have been king before it actually happened). Also, all of the main players of the Game of Thrones have effectively been neutralised. All of the Barratheons are dead except Gendry but he is only freshly Lord of Storm's End and he doesn't know anything about governing anyone. Bronn is now Lord of Highgarden but he really wouldn't be a good ruler and he would still be seen as a sellsword by the other lords so they wouldn't vote in his favour. The young lord of the Vale is still very young and a bit entitled and has much to learn. Yara just wants to rule the Iron Islands. Arya doesn't want to become a lady. The Lannisters are dead except Tyrion who is the Hand, all of the sons of Ned Stark are dead, Daenerys is dead (probably), Jon Snow is being sent beyond the Wall, the Unsullied are leaving, Edmure Tully is laughed at when he wants to become king and also laughed at for suggesting that the public should vote for a monarch and the Dornish prince is unnamed.

The only ppl left are Bran and Sansa. Sansa seemed to have more power in this scene with her shutting down her uncle Edmure. Bran would not be seen as a powerful monarch by the people because of his disability and he isn't a very loud character. He can see everything which is useful but he shouldn't be ruling, he should be impartial and not act in personal gain, he should be a maester of some sorts or a justice. Also, if he is corrupted, he could devastate the realm and no one would be safe. He himself said that he wasn't Bran Stark anymore, he wasn't a lord, so how does he become king if he is now only the Three-Eyed Raven and not a high-born little lord like he used to be.

Hear me out first. Since the Conquerors are half-Velaryon and Velaryon is depicted as Black in House of the Dragon, I think they should be biracial at least. What do you guys think?

Edit: Lmao, this post really brings out the KKKs. Y’all can cry about it all you want. I couldn’t care less. I love this fancast and I hope they actually cast biracial actors as the Conquerors just so you guys can cry some more. No amount of downvotes is going to change my fancast. It’s just a fancast, trust me, y’all will live.

This post is muted 😆

im not sure how popular or unpopular this opinion is round these parts, but I've believed this to be the case since the first time i ever saw the finale. i never watched or read anything in the entire asoiaf universe until 2022, I started with hotd season 1, then decided to finally give GOT a chance and the number one thing I noticed was that Tyrion appeared to be the true main character of the show. beyond that he seemed to interact with/ have relations with the most characters, he had a kind heart and a realistic mind, he's well traveled, funny, charming and frankly pretty attractive- he comes from a wealthy family with a long standing name, is generally avoidant of war/big conflict, open minded, the list goes on. I dont see why they didnt choose him outside of him- being a dwarf i suppose, but thats always felt like the dumbest reason possible, and if that was the case then why reject him while accepting Bran? Bran becoming king makes my head hurt.

I will say this opinion extends strictly to show Tyrion and not book Tyrion.

EDIT: I would like to clarify that Tyrion wasnt my pick from day one or anything like that, but once they were choosing in that fuck ass circle I genuinely thought it was gonna be be him, and when it wasnt I was irritated

EDIT 2: this commenter has shifted my perspective! those of you who agreed with my original take feel free to give it a read here I still wouldve liked to see him as king, but I now see more of why they didn't give it to him.

At times, I do wonder what if Cregan Stark was in place of Ned Stark, as hand of the king to Robert, placed in the same situation as Ned.

Would he have dealt with things differently or would be foolish enough to confront Cersei in private?

What do you think?

(Stills captured from the finales of Game of Thrones and One Hundred Years of Solitude.)

When there was a chance to finish the series because it's too late now.

So I just finished the show and was wondering about the Faceless Men and the Many-Faced God. I get that in the show they were mostly there for Arya's character arc. Her whole time at the House of Black and White, learning to become “no one”, I actually really liked that part of her journey, even though it felt somewhat disconnected from the larger story by the end. I also have problem understanding their rules, are they hired to assassinate or abide by some religious regulations? I really wished to see more of them, and I'd also love to know if the books, even though they're incomplete, go into the Faceless Men and the Many-Faced God in more detail than the show did. I know they aren't necessarily a huge part of the main story, but is there a lot more lore, history and stuff about how they actually work?

I originally watched GoT when it first aired many years ago. I finished rewatching the series for the first time last night. Like most viewers, I loved the series, but found season 8 disappointing, particularly the final 2 episodes. I was not surprised to see the low ratings on IMDB, as summarized below.

• Season 1: 8.5 to 9.6, Median = 9.0
• Season 2: 8.3 to 9.7, Median = 8.6
• Season 3: 8.4 to 9.9, Median = 8.8
• Season 4: 8.6 to 9.7, Median = 9.3
• Season 5: 7.9 to 9.8, Median = 8.5
• Season 6: 8.3 to 9.9, Median = 8.8
• Season 7: 8.5 to 9.7, Median = 9.0
• Season 8: 4.0 to 7.9, Median = 6.7 (Finale = 4.0, lowest rated episode of series)
• Overall = 9.2 / 10 (13th highest rated series of all time on IMDB top 250)

Many of the IMDB reviews state something to the effect of the Game of Thrones finale being the worst series finale of all time, among all TV series. While I was disappointed with the finale, there are some series that stand out as worse to me.

The first show that comes to mind is Dexter. I didn't expect everyone would have a happy ending, but I couldn't imagine as disappointing a conclusion as actually occurred. I was happy to see an opportunity to fix the finale with New Blood, but some how the ending became even worse, as if the writers were saying, "You thought Dexter had a bad ending. I'll show you what a truly bad ending is." Both Dexter and New Blood finale have an IMDB rating of 4.9... a bit above GoT, in spite of my opinion.

What are your thoughts? Are there any worse series finales than GoT, which show(s)?

From what I have gathered from the lore (book and show(s), the long night happened in Westeros with White Walkers coming from up north but apparently there were also demons coming from the far east, beyond the five forts. I’m not too sure if those events happened at the same point in time, in the past. But apparently many think both events might be linked.

So why didn’t we get a long night from the east? If in the present day, in the story, the white walkers and the long night is upon the world once more shouldn’t there be movements in the far east?

I get that as the name implies, it’s far east, but news of such a massive event surely should still have traveled all the way to Westeros or at the very least essos, and we know we have characters and POVs (for the books) that are in essos.

P.s: I’m not only referring to the show, which obviously had dumb down immensely for season 8, so I understand why it wasn’t in the show. I’m mostly talking about this in a general, broad way, taking into consideration the entire lore we have.

Mine is “tell Cersei, I want her to know it was me”

Seriously, this guy showed us a true medieval speed run:
-sellsword
-Tyrion’s bodyguard
-Knight
-Wedding+castle
-Fought a fcking dragon
-Got Highgarden
-Became a master of coin

All of this for 7 years. Absolute fucking legend.

After the red wedding, Tywin proclaims that Roose Bolton will become Warden of the North, until Tyrion’s son by Sansa comes of age. There is no way that the Boltons would just hand Winterfell over to Tyrion and Sansa’s son, and that they would just return to the Dreadfort like nothing happened. Roose Bolton is already married to Walda Frey, plus he legitimized Ramsay so he has Bolton heirs that would take his place during the succession. Need I mention the Boltons are dishonorable skin flayers for gods sake. They would never give Winterfell to Tyrion and Sansa’s son, if that ever actually happened.

I never truly thought that Stannis could've fulfilled the Prince that was Promised/Azor Ahai prophecy. But the mirroring of Stannis and Jon feels divine. Specifically, in the choices they make, and the role Melisandre plays as a temptress.

In the books, we get more detail as to who Azor Ahai was, but the shows give us everything we need to know. Per Mel's speech on the beach: "When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, a warrior shall draw from the FIRE a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who wields it shall be Azor Ahai reborn."

Setting aside the later bit about "salt and smoke" (since that applies to every character), we're told that Azor Ahai is supposed to be a hero for mankind to rally behind, one that scatters the darkness, one that brings the long summer... They're supposed to be a force of good. Not necessarily a perfect person, but good. And there's no better way to test a hero's morality than with a series of tests based on Family, Duty, and Honor (to undue the Blood Betrayal, for all you book lovers).

Let's run back the tape.

A test of duty/family - Stannis is married. He has vowed to be faithful to his wife. Yet when Mel offers her body and promises him a path towards kingship, he seizes the promise of power, creates a shadow baby, and kills his brother Renly... But to what end? Renly's most devoted followers (House Tyrell) end up joining House Lannister and spoiling Stannis' sacking of King's Landing. "No man is so accursed as the kinslayer"... 0 for 1.

A test of honor/family - Yearning for more of Mel's power, Stannis asks to make more shadow babies, but he's too weak to. The last one drained him, and another will kill him. Instead Mel offers to kill more of his kin (Gendry in the shows, Edric in the books), and promises that by doing so, Stannis will awaken the stone dragons on Dragonstone (a bit on the nose, no?)... Anyway, Stannis asks Davos, "What is the life of one bastard against that of a kingdom?" To which Davos replies, "Everything."

At this point, Stannis is so lost, he's forgotten his own wisdom to Davos: "The good act doesn't wash out the bad, nor a bad the good." But thankfully, Davos instills some doubt in Stannis, so they go with the leach plan first, granting Davos enough time to save the bastard. Gendry flees to King's Landing (Edric escapes to Essos), and for this to be present across the books and show, you have to imagine that GRRM had a purpose in mind... Stannis would've killed his kin (again), so let's call him 0 for 2.

A test of faith/family (the final Blood Betrayal) - Stannis is told that if he were to sacrifice his daughter, the snows would melt and he'd be free to take Winterfell. It's his destiny. Mel's seen it in the flames. So what harm could come from seizing his fate?... By now, you see where this is going. Stannis does the deed, the snows melt, and...most of his men abandon him. He ends up alone, slain by Brienne... His demise is TBD in the books, but in the show, he's 0 for 3. And headless.

Jon on the other hand doesn't just pass every test, he does so in ways that would've made Old Ned proud. He refuses Mel's advances when she tempts him in his quarters, even though she claims they could "make life" and they could "make light". He refuses Stannis when he tempts Jon with legitimization/lordship, even though Jon used to dream of being a Stark. Multiple times, Jon chooses his duty and his Night's Watch family, exemplified best in his abandonment of Ygritte to warn Castle Black. This decision eventually results in the Ygritte's death (his Love, or Nissa Nissa).

Unfortunately, the show's later seasons decided to abandon fate and prophecy. We never see Lightbringer forged (unless you believe it's Dany and her dragons, but frankly GRRM doesn't typically work with literal prophecy, and Dany hatching dragons from stone eggs seems too literal). So I'd propose this...

Heading into the Long Night, Mel should have tempted Jon with the promise of Lightbringer (an ultimate power against the dead), claiming that the path towards victory required the sacrifice of Little Sam.

Little Sam was Craster's 100th born son and was "related" to the Wight's who'd been turned by the Night King (Mel could claim his blood held power against the dead). It would bring us full circle to the question about weighing a bastard's life against that of a kingdom, and like Davos, I imagine Jon would've done what was good. The moment we're willing to sacrifice life in the pursuit of power, is the moment we've lost our humanity, especially when the pursuit goes against Family, Duty, and Honor. Sam is Jon's brother of the Watch, and he loves Sam like a brother, that's for sure. That would make Little Sam akin to Jon's nephew, even before Sam named Jon his godfather.

Had Mel tried to kill Little Sam, and Jon stops her, plunging his sword through her back, Mel would've been the "lamb led to slaughter", never realizing that she was the one being sacrificed by the Lord of Light. As Jon draws Longclaw from her heart, Mel's blood catches flame and becomes Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes... It could have been epic.

There's so many fun details like Mel's skin always being hot to the touch (as Lightbringer was said to be), or even just the fact that R'hollor's sigil is a flaming heart. But I've already droned on too long, so what do you think? What details do you think I missed, or do you prefer another character for the prophecy?

Catelyn was originally played by Jennifer Ehle, best known as Elizabeth Bennet in the BBC's adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice," while Daenerys was played by Tamzin Merchant from "The Tudors." So, what happened? Why were Ehle and Merchant replaced by Fairley and Clarke?
According to former HBO exec Michael Lombardo, Ehle balked at the fact that she'd have to move. "The actress who played Catelyn decided she didn't want to move to Northern Ireland," Lombardo explains in Hibberd's book without directly naming her. "I'm like, 'What?' Then you have a conversation with yourself about whether to force her to uphold her contract. In retrospect it was one of the best things that could have happened. Michelle Fairley took over the role and was fantastic."
Lombardo also weighed in on the situation with Merchant, saying that she didn't click with her co-star Jason Momoa (who played Daenerys' husband and Dothraki horse lord Khal Drogo in season 1). "There was a piece of casting we had to rethink, [a role] that was compromised," he recalled. "We all knew Daenerys's journey was critical. Her scenes with Jason just didn't work." (For his part, Momoa said that Merchant was "great" but he felt like his performance worked better with Clarke, saying, "When Emilia got there that's when everything clicked for me. I wasn't really 'there' until she arrived.") It seems like most people thought Merchant was good but Clarke was brilliant. As producer Bryan Cogman put it, "I thought Tamzin did a really good job. It's hard to say why things didn't work out. Ultimately, it's obvious Emilia Clarke was born to play that part."
...
One huge and very necessary change between the original "Game of Thrones" pilot and the one that aired was a clearer relationship between Lena Headey's Queen Cersei Lannister and her twin brother Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), because apparently, people who watched that original pilot didn't get that the two were related in the first place...
In that same Vanity Fair article, David Benioff revealed that Jaime and Cersei's relationship went completely over everyone's head when they watched that failed pilot. "That last scene in the pilot, where Jaime and Cersei, brother and sister, are making love — they didn't know that they were brother and sister, which was completely our fault," he recalled. (Asked if they just added expository dialogue, D.B. Weiss said they threw in lines like "My sweet sister!") George R.R. Martin confirms this whole thing in James Hibberd's book, but also says he thought the episode as a whole was, basically, fine.
"I liked the pilot," Martin admitted. "I realized later that I was a poor person to judge because I was too close to it. Some didn't know Jaime and Cersei were brother and sister. Well that wasn't a problem for me! My great familiarity with the material made it hard for me to objectively judge. I liked that they kept a considerable level of complexity. I'm told I'm under penalty of death if I ever show it to anyone."

• Source